Adaptive co-management is an adaptive management approach. It is an experimental management technique focused on monitoring, learning and recalibration (Noble, 2013; Ruhl, 2004; Armitage, Berkes & Doubleday, 2007) and can be defined as the “process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-doing” (Folke et al., 2002, 20). As Noble (2013) and Olsson et al. (2004) explain, adaptive co-management often involves networks of actors sharing responsibility and management power. Its principles include: favour action; accept and benefit from uncertainty; be experimental; emphasize resiliency; provide feedback; use as a learning tool that leads to action; and it is adjustable as knowledge increases (Noble, 2013). As Morghan et al. (2006) note, it is designed to provide feedback to researchers and managers so that decisions can be improved as the information regarding natural systems, human systems and their interactions with each other continue to develop. It recognizes that the current state of the management system is not necessarily perfect and that adjustments will likely be required at some point. It is the purpose of this system to be able to make those adjustments quickly and with as little restraint as possible.
As it relates to response capacity for floods, participants view that collaboration, shared responsibility and management, and an adaptive framework (see Table 21) would lead to more successful flood response. Referring to the latter, ten out of twelve Q participants ranked Item 7 greater than 0 and only one participant gave a negative value (- 3). The majority of participants viewed that an adaptive framework is critical in flood management. Interviewed participants supported this position, arguing that the knowledge on flood response is incomplete; having the ability to adjust current policy and practices is fundamental in emergency management because what works today may not necessarily work tomorrow. It is critical in post-recovery emergency management that a system is able to change policy and practices so as to make the necessary adjustments to better protect the population and assets. By contrast, static systems would be as vulnerable to the impacts of
another event as they were prior to that initial event; their ability to reduce those impacts further are constrained.
Table 21: Results of Q analysis for Item 7
For example, under Section 25 of the Compensation and Disaster Financial Assistance Regulation of British Columbia’s Emergency Program Act, financial assistance can be awarded to a municipality for the purpose of repairing, rebuilding, or replacing public facilities; however, repairs must be made to return to the original state of the facility as it existed prior to the disaster. Assistance will not be provided to repair a public facility if it is determined that changes to that facility will be made using these resources even if those changes would minimize future risk to a similar event. The problem is that in the event that a flood does occur and failures in existing policy and practices are determined, adjusting municipal practice by enhancing infrastructure, for example, becomes very difficult because access to external resources is reduced.
By having an adaptive framework in place so that institutional policy and
practices can be adjusted as knowledge on flood response increases, the ability to respond to flood risk is less constricted. As one participant stated,
Everything is fluid. It sounds like some pun on flood management, but it really is. The important thing is that your adaptation strategy is able to adapt and that is the
challenge of it because politicians and staff, especially professional staff, do not like to say things that tomorrow might no longer be true, but the reality of flood management in a changing climate is we only know what we know today and tomorrow we are going to have to be prepared to go ‘who knew’ and ‘now we know’. So we need to take more action.
Therefore, it can influence response capacity to floods as it can affect an institution’s ability to make necessary adjustments to policy and practices when needed in a timely manner.
Item Factor (factor array)
7. Successful flood management is dependent on or will increase if an adaptive framework is used so that new information and technology and changing conditions can effectively and efficiently lead to necessary adjustments.
Factor 1 (3) Factor 2 (2) Factor 3 (2)
6.5
Conclusion
Literature, interview data and Q analysis findings indicate resource efficiency and collaborative management, co-management, and adaptive co-management as mechanisms that can increase an institution’s ability to respond. More efficient use of resources allows institutions to maximize their flood management system’s output by optimizing the value of every input. Collaborative management focuses on maximizing performance through meaningful interactions with stakeholders. Co-management increases an institution’s access to external resources and lessens the burden of emergency management through shared responsibility and shared managing power. Finally, adaptive co-management is a hybrid management approach combining collaborative management and co-management, but with emphasis on adjusting policy and practice with minimal interference as knowledge on flood and emergency management continues to increase.
Interviewed and Q participants viewed interdisciplinary collaboration, shared responsibility among levels of government, and an adaptive framework as essential mechanisms for successful flood response. Data suggested a need for greater involvement at higher levels of government beyond the municipality. Focus on enhancing cohesion among departments within an institution, with other institutions, and among levels of government is viewed by participants as necessary for future flood management success. Although the participants in the City of Vancouver and District of Maple Ridge noted strong collaboration and communication with external stakeholders, they also noted that the involvement from higher levels of government in emergency and flood management is sporadic, needing greater communication.
Organizational theory is oriented on organizational structure, design and culture as fundamental to identifying organizational behaviour (Jones, 2001; Hosmer, 1995). The mechanisms presented in this Chapter show that organizational behaviour is influenced by the interactions that take place internally and with other organizations or institutions. The mechanisms show that the organization or institution’s output is highly dependent on networks of actors contributing to a common goal and the resources that can be attributed to having those connections in place.
Under the various management approaches, it was evident how these approaches could affect response capacity, but what remained unanswered was what these flood
management systems should look like. This goes beyond the scope of this study although it is a logical next step. At this juncture, the outcome of such study would be highly speculative. Interviewed participants in the City of Vancouver did note that an ICLEI framework for climate change adaptation, which includes their flood response, is being undertaken at the moment, and has been reported as being successful in other municipalities that follow the same framework. Again, there is a need to further explore adaptive co-management as it relates to increasing an institution’s response capacity to floods. It is through future research on increasing response capacity to floods that the knowledge gap in flood response may be reduced.
7
Conclusion
7.1
Introduction
Evidence of climate change and increases in disasters around the world suggest a necessity to adapt to future conditions; however, disaster risk reduction policy and practice has developed into a complicated system due to the complexity of municipal, regional, and national governance. The purpose of this paper is to aid decision-makers of flood response by creating a conceptual framework for discussion of institutional response capacity and municipal action. The purpose is not to expose any failure in policy and practice, but instead to assist decision-makers in understanding how response capacity is built and identify areas by which institutional action can be affected.
This study also addresses a knowledge gap in literature relating to community-based response capacity and action. It is argued that the ability to manage risk is complex and involves many interacting variables, including institutional behaviour and collective action, technological pathways, and resource management. This study promotes precautionary adaptive co-management and it provides a foundation for further research that seeks to increase response capacity through different management techniques. It offers a preliminary investigation into urban governance and flood and emergency response.
The purpose of this final Chapter is to summarize the findings presented in this project, identify significant limitations of this study, and discuss the direction of future research on flood response.